Comments on: Hardball http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/ Big Teeth. Huge Ass. Surprisingly Reasonable. Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:03:13 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Campeador http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/comment-page-1/#comment-420486 Campeador Sun, 19 Oct 2008 03:02:14 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=9340#comment-420486 So, the 'American People' are concerned about Obama's true relationship with anti-America types. Furthermore, it is claimed, Obama has refused to clarify the nature and extent of the alleged relationship. Upon being informed that Obama did address the issue during the third debate, the 'point-talker' reiterates that the 'american people' want to know the full extent of said relationship. Want to go around one more time? This is where we came in. And if the game becomes repetitive, risking becoming obvious, well there's always more names that the 'point-talker' can throw out to confound the questioner and the audience: Ayers, Wright, Pelosi, Reid, they're all grist for the mill of the 'talking point'. And since the whole point is not to inform but rather to confuse, their battle will have been won when one gives up trying to make sense of the non-sense being slung about like so much rancid hash. An antidote to this poison suggests itself to me: Deconstruct the specious argument and challenge each of the resultant elements, to wit: 1. What gives you the authority to speak for the American People? What are your sources of data? 2. Since Obama has made a public response to your 'question', what parts of his explanation are either false or incomplete? What evidence can you advance to support your contention? Mere reiteration of your accusation does not constitute proof that Obama was lying or being evasive. Again, what is the proof of your contention? 3. Do you truly believe Obama is anti-american and if so, have you filed a formal complaint before the proper authorities? 4. Do you feel uncomfortable when faced with this last, 'reductium ad absurdum', question? If so, then you have some sense of the frustration that thinking people feel when faced with your assault on languge as a means of conveying information from one mind to another. So, the ‘American People’ are concerned about Obama’s true relationship with anti-America types. Furthermore, it is claimed, Obama has refused to clarify the nature and extent of the alleged relationship. Upon being informed that Obama did address the issue during the third debate, the ‘point-talker’ reiterates that the ‘american people’ want to know the full extent of said relationship. Want to go around one more time? This is where we came in. And if the game becomes repetitive, risking becoming obvious, well there’s always more names that the ‘point-talker’ can throw out to confound the questioner and the audience: Ayers, Wright, Pelosi, Reid, they’re all grist for the mill of the ‘talking point’. And since the whole point is not to inform but rather to confuse, their battle will have been won when one gives up trying to make sense of the non-sense being slung about like so much rancid hash. An antidote to this poison suggests itself to me: Deconstruct the specious argument and challenge each of the resultant elements, to wit: 1. What gives you the authority to speak for the American People? What are your sources of data? 2. Since Obama has made a public response to your ‘question’, what parts of his explanation are either false or incomplete? What evidence can you advance to support your contention? Mere reiteration of your accusation does not constitute proof that Obama was lying or being evasive. Again, what is the proof of your contention? 3. Do you truly believe Obama is anti-american and if so, have you filed a formal complaint before the proper authorities? 4. Do you feel uncomfortable when faced with this last, ‘reductium ad absurdum’, question? If so, then you have some sense of the frustration that thinking people feel when faced with your assault on languge as a means of conveying information from one mind to another.

]]> By: Trescml http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/comment-page-1/#comment-420417 Trescml Sat, 18 Oct 2008 12:41:51 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=9340#comment-420417 Well it looks like McCain's "“narrow-victory scenario” is really a "“narrow-minded-victory scenario”. There are major differences between the two major parties and they should be debated. But, when you fall behind to suggest that the Congress has "anti-American" elements, is not only wrong from a moral perspective, but also serves to keep people from focusing on what real needs of the country. Well it looks like McCain’s ““narrow-victory scenario” is really a ““narrow-minded-victory scenario”. There are major differences between the two major parties and they should be debated. But, when you fall behind to suggest that the Congress has “anti-American” elements, is not only wrong from a moral perspective, but also serves to keep people from focusing on what real needs of the country.

]]> By: Terry http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/comment-page-1/#comment-420408 Terry Sat, 18 Oct 2008 09:51:34 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=9340#comment-420408 So the official return of McCarthyism has begun? It's unbelievable to me that the representative honestly believes there are anti-Americans serving in the Senate! But honestly, if you look at other interview she has done, it's clear she isn't speaking for many citizens of the US, just like Al Sharpton doesn't speak for most African Americans. So the official return of McCarthyism has begun? It’s unbelievable to me that the representative honestly believes there are anti-Americans serving in the Senate! But honestly, if you look at other interview she has done, it’s clear she isn’t speaking for many citizens of the US, just like Al Sharpton doesn’t speak for most African Americans.

]]> By: bubbles http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/comment-page-1/#comment-420397 bubbles Sat, 18 Oct 2008 05:38:49 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=9340#comment-420397 For further proof of this paranoid anti-American meme, check out this article that Drudge posted on his website saying how Obama scrapped the National Anthem or Pledge at a NH rally.... http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama%3a+%27You+cannot+let+up%27&articleId=1a7835c3-2468-4e6c-8d56-7253c033232a For further proof of this paranoid anti-American meme, check out this article that Drudge posted on his website saying how Obama scrapped the National Anthem or Pledge at a NH rally….

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Obama%3a+%27You+cannot+let+up%27&articleId=1a7835c3-2468-4e6c-8d56-7253c033232a

]]> By: bubbles http://donklephant.com/2008/10/17/hardball/comment-page-1/#comment-420396 bubbles Sat, 18 Oct 2008 05:03:39 +0000 http://donklephant.com/?p=9340#comment-420396 This is exactly what Richard Hofstadter wrote about nearly half a century ago. This is exactly what Richard Hofstadter wrote about nearly half a century ago.

]]>